SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 2085

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Sarika Rani – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal And Another – Respondent
CWP No. 3383 of 2019
Decided on : 12-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate For Petitioner;
For the Respondent:Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl.J (Oral)

1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Jind and order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind, whereby petitioner was evicted from the matrimonial home.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion, which reads as under:-

"The challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind, and in terms of which an application moved by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen, Act 2007, has been accepted and the petitioner herein has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. Further challenge is to the order dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Jind, affirming the order of eviction dated 07.06.2018 passed by the SDM, Jind.Petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2.

It is inter alia contended that the application moved by respondent No.2 on 12.02.2018 was itself not maintainable as respondent No.2, had not attained the age of 60 years as on such date. The definition of senior citizen under Section 2 (h) of the Act has been adverted to which means any person being a citizen of India and who has attained the age of 60 years or above. In support of such contention, counsel has adverted to the application that respondent No. 2 had filed earlier in point of time on 23.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) seeking the same very relief and which had been dismissed on the ground that the date of birth of respondent No.2 reflected in the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana is 11.03.1958. It is argued that the second application seeking identical relief was instituted on 12.02.2018 and which has led to the passing of the impugned eviction order and as on 12.02.2018 also respondent No.2 had not attained the age of 60 years. That apart a contention has been raised that the filing of the application seeking eviction of the petitioner is not bona fide inasmuch as a matrimonial dispute is pending between the petitioner and her husband. Husband has already filed a divorce petition in November 2016 and the mother-inlaw/respondent No.2 has filed the application seeking eviction without even impleading her own son and using the same as a device to oust the daughter-in-law.

Notion of motion returnable for 25.04.2019.

Eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed till

further orders."

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are three points for setting aside the impugned orders. The first being that the respondent no.2 had not attained the age of 60 years on the date when the application was filed. The second being that the application was filed to evict the daughter-in-law in view of the dispute of the daughter-in-law with her husband. The third plea taken is that the application was filed under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Act 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the 2007 Act) and the said power of eviction has been struck down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others and in the LPA filed against the same there is no stay.

4. Learned State counsel has referred to the instructions dated 29.11.2023 issued by the Director General, Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of Scs & Bcs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Haryana, Chandigarh and the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"From

Director General Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of SCs & BCs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Harya

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top